Appropriately enough, Jordan Harrison’s déjà-vu-inducing “Marjorie Prime” has been here before. The Off Broadway theatre Playwrights Horizons produced the poignant sci-fi play about hyperrealistic re-creations of the dead—so-called Primes, which are used as a supportive technology for the bereaved—in Anne Kauffman’s spirited, delicately comic production, back in 2015. Lois Smith, then eighty-five years old, played Marjorie, a woman struggling with dementia. It’s the early twenty-sixties, and so Marjorie is attended by a holographic Prime of her husband, Walter, who tells her stories from her own life. Whatever sort of husband he was before his death, this Walter, eternally youthful, has nothing to do but sit ramrod straight, paying perfect attention to his wife, forever.
Now Second Stage revives “Marjorie Prime” at the Hayes, on Broadway, with the mischievous ninety-six-year-old June Squibb as a new and more buoyant Marjorie. Squibb, our ingénue, has also been here before. Her Broadway début was as a replacement in the role of the stripper Electra in the original 1959 production of “Gypsy”—she sang the immortal lyric “If you wanna make it / Twinkle while you shake it.” Squibb has dutifully kept twinkling (and shaking): her late-career renaissance surged in 2014, with an Oscar nomination for her turn as an exasperated wife in “Nebraska”; and, just last year, she starred in the action comedy “Thelma”—and did her own stunts.
Here, Cynthia Nixon plays Marjorie’s anxious daughter, Tess, and Danny Burstein plays her sweet son-in-law, Jon. (Kauffman returns to direct.) The three of them live in a strangely impersonal house—the uncanny set design is by Lee Jellinek—overtly “futuristic” only in its kitchen cabinets, which open upward, like the gull wings on a DeLorean. As Walter, Christopher Lowell is a particularly smooth-faced simulacrum; he is polite and attentive to everything the others say, gathering anecdotes one day so that he can regurgitate them the next. Tess wants to keep certain parts of the past secret from him—that way, Marjorie won’t relearn them—but Jon counsels candor. (Meanwhile, Marjorie persuades Walter to insert a movie-theatre outing to “Casablanca” into a story, to class the memory up a little.)
At first, stage time in “Marjorie Prime” operates according to a Marjorie-based tempo. If she forgets something—a day spent alone in the dark, a fall—then the play doesn’t show it. Blackouts between scenes seem to represent the gaps in Marjorie’s mind, and a great deal happens offstage which Marjorie discovers only when her daughter reminds her. Eventually, though, after her death, Marjorie “returns” as a Prime to support an inconsolable Tess, and the sequence gets even looser. Time jumps might span a year, or more. People die; Primes do not.
Another of Harrison’s sci-fi plays, “The Antiquities,” opened this year at Playwrights—and it, too, focusses on the nonhumans that will follow us. In that play, inorganic intelligences construct dioramas around artifacts from Homo sapiens, wondering how we might have used a clarinet or a bottle of shampoo. Isn’t it a comfort that our creations will still think about us, ex post facto? (The “facto” here is apocalypse.) We’ve been playing this particular wistful-machines chord for a long time: Steven Spielberg’s movie “A.I. Artificial Intelligence,” from 2001, starred Haley Joel Osment as an android copy of a grieving woman’s child who loves her in a way that no real boy could; right now, down the street, the decommissioned robots in the musical “Maybe Happy Ending” also recall their owners with pride and sorrow.
But something spikier is happening in this iteration of “Marjorie Prime.” The intervening decade has changed Harrison’s elegantly resigned “at least they’ll miss us” narrative into something more macabre, more pointed, and more frightening. Walter Prime’s willingness to overwrite facts to suit Marjorie’s preferences looks a lot less adorable in a world where generative-A.I. agents can be tweaked to flatter their owners, not to mention the ramifications of Walter’s constant hunger for Marjorie’s data. We recognize this familiar type of predatory, pacifying interactive technology. Maybe we’ll learn someday soon—maybe even tomorrow!—that the substitution of sycophantic A.I. “conversation” for human exchange was the decisive blow that did us in as a species.
That’s the sort of thinking that can really take the pep out of an evening. And so although Kauffman again directs a production full of warmth—Squibb shines, Burstein radiates kindness—it’s nonetheless a chilling night at the theatre. During the play’s anguished climax, we find out that a character dies by suicide after having spoken, we don’t know for how long, to a Prime. There is no implication in the original text that the thing might have encouraged self-harm, but I have my suspicions. Ten years ago, even Harrison couldn’t have known how relentlessly helpful ChatGPT can be.
Where Harrison uses silences, stillness, and abbreviated scenes to suggest loss, Eugene O’Neill went with the opposite approach: the father of American drama never chose one word when a hundred would do. If during “Anna Christie,” his Pulitzer Prize-winning play from 1921, O’Neill wanted you to note the symbolic effect of, say, fog, he would simply put “fog” in the script twenty-six times.
In the strange, self-sabotaging revival at St. Ann’s Warehouse, directed by Thomas Kail, Michelle Williams plays Anna Christie. Should Anna’s last name suggests a certain savior, it’s because she begins as one of the fallen: an exhausted twenty-year-old prostitute from St. Paul. Greta Garbo played this tough-spirited woman of the world in her first speaking film role, in 1930, and continues to throw a nearly century-long shadow. In Williams’s case, Anna’s famous first line—“Gimme a whiskey, ginger ale on the side, and don’t be stingy, baby!”—comes out with a quiver of self-doubt. It doesn’t sound like bravado. It sounds like a cry for help.
Anna has come East to meet her estranged father, the Swedish bargeman Chris (Brian d’Arcy James), who believes Anna’s been earning money as a nursemaid. Eager to make a respectable impression, Chris shuffles off his hard-bitten companion, Marthy (Mare Winningham, squinting and grumbling delightfully), and father and daughter ride Chris’s barge up the coast, through the fog, ready for a new start. “It makes me feel clean,” Anna says of the sea, as if she’s been washed of her sins. After they rescue a shipwrecked stoker named Mat Burke (Tom Sturridge), the galoot pins his romantic hopes on his mistaken idea of Anna’s virtue. “Is it dreaming I am?” Mat wonders, when he sees her gleaming blond head appear before him, offering a drink. (Everyone in the play other than Chris and Mat sizes her up in a flash.)
O’Neill enjoyed writing in dialect, and so the actors here must contend with all manner of thick-accent work, which makes comprehension tricky. Sturridge, a Londoner, chooses an impenetrable inflection (it could be Scouse, though his character says that he’s Irish), and d’Arcy James, among our finest musical-theatre actors, has a ball with his syncopated Swedish mannerisms. Williams, unfortunately, is so wrong-footed by the requirements of the period’s rhythms that her first heavily accented appearance, in a dockside saloon, is her most unsteady. In moments during the second half, though, when she’s less conscientiously Midwestern, she takes on an electric, fitful jangliness, which seems appropriate for a woman trying to re-start the cold engine of her life.
Unfortunately, Sturridge gives a counterintuitive performance, one so at odds with the play’s romance and the performances around him that it sinks the ship. O’Neill describes the coal stoker, in one of his many page-filling stage directions, as a “powerful, broad-chested six-footer . . . in the full power of his heavy-muscled, immense strength.” The trouble isn’t that Sturridge, who has a quicksilver, elven quality, has been cast against type; it’s that he interprets the bewildered, love-stunned lummox as a pallid, twitchy creep, crawling on his haunches like Caliban and wriggling as if he’s got an eel down his trousers. (The night I saw it, Mat wouldn’t stop fumbling with his pants—Anna, I thought, get out.) Kail emphasizes this odd disjunction by stacking the mostly unspeaking ensemble with bruisers, their rolled sleeves straining over yoked shoulders. They, alongside similarly capable-looking stagehands, haul elements of Christine Jones and Brett J. Banakis’s set around, totin’ platforms and heftin’ tables. Maybe Kail is unconcerned with realism and has asked Sturridge to play Mat’s inner self, the frail and contorting one he keeps hidden. But then what’s with all the stevedores from central casting?
Kail is best known for directing “Hamilton” and co-developing the television series “Fosse/Verdon,” which also starred Williams; the two married in 2020. Kail clearly has an abiding interest in dance-adjacent theatre. Here, he has Steven Hoggett choreograph the movement, which includes monkeylike capering from Mat—at one point, he extends a hesitant simian arm to Anna while crouching like a chimp on the floor—and the aforementioned stevedores. I have to assume, therefore, that Kail intends a deliberate elision between this work and O’Neill’s Expressionist “The Hairy Ape,” from 1922, which employs the same plot elements to a much different effect. In that play, too, an engine stoker, Yank, falls for a blonde, though he then turns violent after the anemic girl, who represents society’s upper crust, recoils.
The main character of “Anna Christie,” however, is not the stoker. (The clue is in the title.) Mat is no Yank, an animal waking to the presence of his cage, and Anna is no shrinking violet—she’s a resourceful survivor with a well-earned distrust of men who’s stubborn enough to try for love anyhow. Williams, a tense and withholding presence onstage, might yet have an Anna in her, but it’s hard to see in this production, hampered as she is by Kail’s staging and Sturridge’s baffling interpretation. (No sane woman would choose to date this guy.) You can nonetheless find fragments of her potential Anna. Williams has a lovely way of letting her face go slack whenever she’s calling on her deepest reserves of courage—she does it right before she tells the men the truth of her working past. O’Neill’s play imagines Anna as something of a Christ(ie) figure, and Williams works out how to show us the awful stillness she feels right before redemption. Is it enough to save us, too? Well, no. But it does, for a moment, penetrate the fog. ♦



























